Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1741 | control, N = 871 | treatment, N = 871 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 172 | 50.73 ± 12.67 (25 - 75) | 50.82 ± 12.91 (25 - 75) | 50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73) | 0.931 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 174 | 0.708 | |||
f | 138 (79%) | 68 (78%) | 70 (80%) | ||
m | 36 (21%) | 19 (22%) | 17 (20%) | ||
occupation | 174 | 0.914 | |||
day_training | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
full_time | 22 (13%) | 12 (14%) | 10 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 18 (10%) | 8 (9.2%) | 10 (11%) | ||
other | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
part_time | 32 (18%) | 16 (18%) | 16 (18%) | ||
retired | 43 (25%) | 21 (24%) | 22 (25%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.0%) | 4 (4.6%) | 3 (3.4%) | ||
student | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.1%) | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
unemploy | 42 (24%) | 23 (26%) | 19 (22%) | ||
marital | 174 | 0.972 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
divore | 19 (11%) | 11 (13%) | 8 (9.2%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
married | 53 (30%) | 25 (29%) | 28 (32%) | ||
none | 84 (48%) | 42 (48%) | 42 (48%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.7%) | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
widow | 10 (5.7%) | 5 (5.7%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
edu | 174 | 0.393 | |||
bachelor | 40 (23%) | 16 (18%) | 24 (28%) | ||
diploma | 32 (18%) | 21 (24%) | 11 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.9%) | 4 (4.6%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (8.6%) | 8 (9.2%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
primary | 12 (6.9%) | 5 (5.7%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 19 (11%) | 10 (11%) | 9 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 42 (24%) | 19 (22%) | 23 (26%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 9 (5.2%) | 4 (4.6%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
fam_income | 174 | 0.713 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.4%) | 2 (2.3%) | 4 (4.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 10 (5.7%) | 4 (4.6%) | 6 (6.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (4.6%) | 3 (3.4%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
18001_20000 | 8 (4.6%) | 6 (6.9%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
20001_above | 33 (19%) | 20 (23%) | 13 (15%) | ||
2001_4000 | 24 (14%) | 13 (15%) | 11 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 19 (11%) | 7 (8.0%) | 12 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 16 (9.2%) | 9 (10%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 14 (8.0%) | 7 (8.0%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
below_2000 | 32 (18%) | 14 (16%) | 18 (21%) | ||
medication | 174 | 155 (89%) | 77 (89%) | 78 (90%) | 0.808 |
onset_duration | 172 | 15.46 ± 10.38 (0 - 56) | 16.00 ± 11.34 (0 - 56) | 14.90 ± 9.34 (0 - 35) | 0.492 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 170 | 35.39 ± 13.56 (10 - 65) | 34.68 ± 12.42 (10 - 61) | 36.10 ± 14.64 (14 - 65) | 0.495 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1741 | control, N = 871 | treatment, N = 871 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 174 | 3.10 ± 1.19 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5) | 0.704 |
recovery_stage_b | 174 | 17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24) | 17.91 ± 2.88 (8 - 24) | 17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24) | 0.669 |
ras_confidence | 174 | 29.74 ± 5.26 (14 - 45) | 29.33 ± 5.14 (14 - 40) | 30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45) | 0.315 |
ras_willingness | 174 | 11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.74 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.709 |
ras_goal | 174 | 17.42 ± 3.12 (7 - 25) | 17.17 ± 3.01 (7 - 24) | 17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25) | 0.297 |
ras_reliance | 174 | 13.31 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.08 ± 2.80 (5 - 18) | 13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20) | 0.295 |
ras_domination | 174 | 9.76 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 9.94 ± 2.49 (3 - 15) | 9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15) | 0.334 |
symptom | 174 | 30.04 ± 9.17 (14 - 56) | 30.28 ± 9.58 (14 - 55) | 29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56) | 0.736 |
slof_work | 174 | 22.32 ± 4.76 (10 - 30) | 22.52 ± 4.37 (12 - 30) | 22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30) | 0.579 |
slof_relationship | 174 | 25.30 ± 5.90 (9 - 35) | 24.97 ± 5.88 (9 - 35) | 25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35) | 0.450 |
satisfaction | 174 | 20.33 ± 7.12 (5 - 35) | 19.48 ± 6.96 (5 - 33) | 21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 0.115 |
mhc_emotional | 174 | 10.74 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.47 ± 3.68 (3 - 17) | 11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18) | 0.345 |
mhc_social | 174 | 14.98 ± 5.55 (5 - 30) | 14.80 ± 5.54 (5 - 30) | 15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29) | 0.673 |
mhc_psychological | 174 | 21.61 ± 6.46 (6 - 36) | 21.34 ± 6.31 (7 - 36) | 21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36) | 0.582 |
resilisnce | 174 | 16.32 ± 4.69 (6 - 30) | 15.72 ± 4.25 (6 - 24) | 16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30) | 0.096 |
social_provision | 174 | 13.52 ± 2.85 (5 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.67 (5 - 20) | 13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 0.080 |
els_value_living | 174 | 16.93 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.64 ± 3.03 (6 - 22) | 17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.243 |
els_life_fulfill | 174 | 12.68 ± 3.38 (4 - 20) | 12.20 ± 3.32 (5 - 19) | 13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20) | 0.059 |
els | 174 | 29.60 ± 6.00 (9 - 45) | 28.84 ± 5.75 (11 - 39) | 30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45) | 0.093 |
social_connect | 174 | 26.63 ± 9.27 (8 - 48) | 27.16 ± 8.93 (8 - 48) | 26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48) | 0.454 |
shs_agency | 174 | 14.26 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 13.72 ± 4.76 (3 - 21) | 14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24) | 0.164 |
shs_pathway | 174 | 15.93 ± 4.18 (3 - 24) | 15.37 ± 4.17 (3 - 24) | 16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24) | 0.078 |
shs | 174 | 30.19 ± 8.90 (6 - 48) | 29.09 ± 8.57 (6 - 45) | 31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48) | 0.104 |
esteem | 174 | 12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20) | 12.62 ± 1.61 (9 - 18) | 12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20) | >0.999 |
mlq_search | 174 | 14.87 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 14.52 ± 3.59 (4 - 21) | 15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21) | 0.190 |
mlq_presence | 174 | 13.33 ± 4.42 (3 - 21) | 13.18 ± 4.15 (3 - 21) | 13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21) | 0.669 |
mlq | 174 | 28.20 ± 7.12 (6 - 42) | 27.70 ± 6.80 (7 - 40) | 28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42) | 0.356 |
empower | 174 | 19.12 ± 4.33 (6 - 30) | 18.69 ± 4.15 (9 - 30) | 19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30) | 0.189 |
ismi_resistance | 174 | 14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.39 ± 2.34 (6 - 20) | 14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 0.977 |
ismi_discrimation | 174 | 11.66 ± 3.05 (5 - 20) | 11.84 ± 2.88 (5 - 20) | 11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 0.442 |
sss_affective | 174 | 10.22 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.15 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 0.787 |
sss_behavior | 174 | 9.90 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 9.98 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.778 |
sss_cognitive | 174 | 8.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 8.34 ± 3.60 (3 - 18) | 8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 0.775 |
sss | 174 | 28.55 ± 10.30 (9 - 54) | 28.47 ± 10.12 (9 - 54) | 28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54) | 0.924 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.14 | 0.127 | 2.89, 3.39 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.069 | 0.179 | -0.420, 0.282 | 0.701 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.183 | 0.181 | -0.171, 0.538 | 0.313 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.274 | 0.262 | -0.240, 0.788 | 0.298 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.308 | 17.3, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.184 | 0.436 | -1.04, 0.670 | 0.673 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.207 | 0.387 | -0.965, 0.551 | 0.594 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.856 | 0.562 | -0.244, 1.96 | 0.130 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.563 | 28.2, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.805 | 0.797 | -0.757, 2.37 | 0.314 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.937 | 0.566 | -0.173, 2.05 | 0.101 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.03 | 0.824 | -0.583, 2.65 | 0.214 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.215 | 11.3, 12.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.115 | 0.304 | -0.480, 0.710 | 0.705 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.067 | 0.242 | -0.541, 0.407 | 0.782 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.455 | 0.351 | -0.233, 1.14 | 0.198 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.338 | 16.5, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.494 | 0.479 | -0.444, 1.43 | 0.303 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.171 | 0.382 | -0.578, 0.921 | 0.655 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.605 | 0.556 | -0.485, 1.69 | 0.279 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.310 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.460 | 0.438 | -0.399, 1.32 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.321 | 0.334 | -0.334, 0.975 | 0.339 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.458 | 0.485 | -0.493, 1.41 | 0.348 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.94 | 0.256 | 9.44, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.356 | 0.361 | -1.06, 0.352 | 0.325 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.086 | 0.343 | -0.586, 0.758 | 0.802 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.936 | 0.498 | -0.039, 1.91 | 0.063 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.3 | 0.978 | 28.4, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.471 | 1.383 | -3.18, 2.24 | 0.734 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.61 | 0.825 | -3.22, 0.011 | 0.055 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.134 | 1.201 | -2.49, 2.22 | 0.911 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.508 | 21.5, 23.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.402 | 0.718 | -1.81, 1.01 | 0.576 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.006 | 0.510 | -0.993, 1.00 | 0.991 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.304 | 0.741 | -1.15, 1.76 | 0.683 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.0 | 0.624 | 23.7, 26.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.678 | 0.883 | -1.05, 2.41 | 0.443 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.129 | 0.672 | -1.45, 1.19 | 0.848 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.528 | 0.977 | -1.39, 2.44 | 0.590 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.5 | 0.760 | 18.0, 21.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.70 | 1.075 | -0.405, 3.81 | 0.115 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.833 | 0.710 | -0.559, 2.22 | 0.244 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.797 | 1.033 | -1.23, 2.82 | 0.443 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.402 | 9.68, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.540 | 0.569 | -0.575, 1.66 | 0.344 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.567 | 0.368 | -0.154, 1.29 | 0.127 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.354 | 0.535 | -1.40, 0.695 | 0.510 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.620 | 13.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.356 | 0.876 | -1.36, 2.07 | 0.685 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.07 | 0.647 | -0.203, 2.33 | 0.103 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.304 | 0.941 | -2.15, 1.54 | 0.747 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.3 | 0.711 | 20.0, 22.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.540 | 1.006 | -1.43, 2.51 | 0.592 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 0.734 | -0.266, 2.61 | 0.114 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.338 | 1.067 | -2.43, 1.75 | 0.752 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.485 | 14.8, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.686 | -0.161, 2.53 | 0.086 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.672 | 0.550 | -0.405, 1.75 | 0.224 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.939 | 0.799 | -0.627, 2.50 | 0.243 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.306 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.759 | 0.432 | -0.088, 1.61 | 0.081 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.372 | 0.335 | -1.03, 0.284 | 0.268 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.751 | 0.487 | -0.203, 1.70 | 0.126 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.342 | 16.0, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.563 | 0.483 | -0.384, 1.51 | 0.245 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.314 | 0.352 | -0.376, 1.00 | 0.375 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.245 | 0.512 | -0.758, 1.25 | 0.633 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.350 | 11.5, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.966 | 0.496 | -0.006, 1.94 | 0.053 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.390 | 0.334 | -0.263, 1.04 | 0.245 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.163 | 0.485 | -0.788, 1.11 | 0.738 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.8 | 0.637 | 27.6, 30.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.53 | 0.901 | -0.237, 3.29 | 0.091 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.718 | 0.573 | -0.405, 1.84 | 0.213 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.315 | 0.833 | -1.32, 1.95 | 0.706 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.2 | 0.998 | 25.2, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.06 | 1.412 | -3.82, 1.71 | 0.455 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.054 | 0.907 | -1.72, 1.83 | 0.952 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.85 | 1.319 | -5.43, -0.263 | 0.033 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.541 | 12.7, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 0.765 | -0.420, 2.58 | 0.160 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.427 | 0.499 | -0.551, 1.41 | 0.394 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.475 | 0.727 | -0.949, 1.90 | 0.515 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.435 | 14.5, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.11 | 0.616 | -0.092, 2.32 | 0.072 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.548 | 0.417 | -0.269, 1.36 | 0.192 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.236 | 0.606 | -1.42, 0.953 | 0.698 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.1 | 0.932 | 27.3, 30.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.20 | 1.318 | -0.389, 4.78 | 0.098 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.966 | 0.851 | -0.702, 2.63 | 0.259 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.227 | 1.238 | -2.20, 2.65 | 0.855 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.166 | 12.3, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.234 | -0.459, 0.459 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.165 | 0.228 | -0.612, 0.282 | 0.470 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.282 | 0.331 | -0.366, 0.931 | 0.395 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.376 | 13.8, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.713 | 0.531 | -0.329, 1.75 | 0.181 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.915 | 0.459 | 0.014, 1.81 | 0.049 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.03 | 0.667 | -2.33, 0.282 | 0.127 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.464 | 12.3, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.287 | 0.656 | -0.999, 1.57 | 0.662 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.896 | 0.518 | -0.120, 1.91 | 0.087 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.228 | 0.753 | -1.70, 1.25 | 0.762 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.754 | 26.2, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 1.066 | -1.09, 3.09 | 0.349 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.82 | 0.872 | 0.109, 3.53 | 0.040 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.24 | 1.267 | -3.72, 1.24 | 0.330 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.7 | 0.460 | 17.8, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.862 | 0.651 | -0.414, 2.14 | 0.187 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.06 | 0.472 | 0.139, 1.99 | 0.027 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.07 | 0.686 | -2.42, 0.271 | 0.121 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.269 | 13.9, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.011 | 0.380 | -0.733, 0.756 | 0.976 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.118 | 0.332 | -0.533, 0.768 | 0.723 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.512 | 0.482 | -0.432, 1.46 | 0.290 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.333 | 11.2, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.356 | 0.470 | -1.28, 0.565 | 0.449 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.226 | 0.438 | -1.08, 0.631 | 0.606 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.588 | 0.635 | -1.83, 0.657 | 0.356 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.390 | 9.38, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.149 | 0.552 | -0.932, 1.23 | 0.787 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.018 | 0.379 | -0.760, 0.725 | 0.962 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.22 | 0.551 | -2.30, -0.140 | 0.029 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.98 | 0.399 | 9.20, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.161 | 0.564 | -1.27, 0.944 | 0.776 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.285 | 0.388 | -1.05, 0.476 | 0.464 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.404 | 0.565 | -1.51, 0.704 | 0.477 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.34 | 0.392 | 7.58, 9.11 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.161 | 0.554 | -0.925, 1.25 | 0.772 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.117 | 0.406 | -0.913, 0.679 | 0.774 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.777 | 0.591 | -1.93, 0.381 | 0.192 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 1.100 | 26.3, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.149 | 1.556 | -2.90, 3.20 | 0.924 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.467 | 0.982 | -2.39, 1.46 | 0.636 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.21 | 1.429 | -5.01, 0.594 | 0.126 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(253) = 24.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(253) = -0.39, p = 0.700; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.54], t(253) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.79], t(253) = 1.04, p = 0.296; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.91 (95% CI [17.30, 18.51], t(253) = 58.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.67], t(253) = -0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.55], t(253) = -0.54, p = 0.593; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.96], t(253) = 1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [28.23, 30.44], t(253) = 52.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.37], t(253) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.17, 2.05], t(253) = 1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.65], t(253) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.31, 12.16], t(253) = 54.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.71], t(253) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.41], t(253) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.14], t(253) = 1.30, p = 0.195; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.17 (95% CI [16.51, 17.84], t(253) = 50.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.43], t(253) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.92], t(253) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.69], t(253) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.69], t(253) = 42.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.32], t(253) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.98], t(253) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.41], t(253) = 0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.94 (95% CI [9.44, 10.44], t(253) = 38.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.35], t(253) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.76], t(253) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.91], t(253) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.36, 32.19], t(253) = 30.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.24], t(253) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-3.22, 0.01], t(253) = -1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.22e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.22], t(253) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.52 (95% CI [21.52, 23.51], t(253) = 44.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.01], t(253) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 5.50e-03, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.00], t(253) = 0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = 1.17e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.76], t(253) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.97 (95% CI [23.74, 26.19], t(253) = 40.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.41], t(253) = 0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.19], t(253) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.44], t(253) = 0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.48 (95% CI [17.99, 20.97], t(253) = 25.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.40, 3.81], t(253) = 1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.22], t(253) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.82], t(253) = 0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.47 (95% CI [9.68, 11.26], t(253) = 26.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.66], t(253) = 0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.29], t(253) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.70], t(253) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.59, 16.02], t(253) = 23.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.07], t(253) = 0.41, p = 0.684; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.33], t(253) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.54], t(253) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.34 (95% CI [19.95, 22.74], t(253) = 30.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.51], t(253) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.27, 2.61], t(253) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.75], t(253) = -0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.72 (95% CI [14.77, 16.68], t(253) = 32.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.53], t(253) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.75], t(253) = 1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.50], t(253) = 1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.54, 13.74], t(253) = 43.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.61], t(253) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.28], t(253) = -1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.70], t(253) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.64 (95% CI [15.97, 17.31], t(253) = 48.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.51], t(253) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.00], t(253) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.25], t(253) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [11.51, 12.88], t(253) = 34.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-5.87e-03, 1.94], t(253) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.78e-03, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.04], t(253) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.11], t(253) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [27.59, 30.09], t(253) = 45.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.29], t(253) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(253) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.95], t(253) = 0.38, p = 0.706; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.16 (95% CI [25.20, 29.12], t(253) = 27.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-3.82, 1.71], t(253) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.83], t(253) = 0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = 5.76e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.85, 95% CI [-5.43, -0.26], t(253) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.72 (95% CI [12.66, 14.78], t(253) = 25.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.58], t(253) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.41], t(253) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.90], t(253) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [14.51, 16.22], t(253) = 35.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.32], t(253) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.36], t(253) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.95], t(253) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.09 (95% CI [27.26, 30.92], t(253) = 31.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.20, 95% CI [-0.39, 4.78], t(253) = 1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.63], t(253) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-2.20, 2.65], t(253) = 0.18, p = 0.854; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.30, 12.95], t(253) = 76.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.63e-14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46], t(253) = -6.95e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = 2.86e-16, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.28], t(253) = -0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93], t(253) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.52 (95% CI [13.78, 15.25], t(253) = 38.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.75], t(253) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [0.01, 1.81], t(253) = 1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [4.12e-03, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.28], t(253) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.18 (95% CI [12.27, 14.09], t(253) = 28.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.57], t(253) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.91], t(253) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.70, 1.25], t(253) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.22, 29.18], t(253) = 36.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.09], t(253) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.82, 95% CI [0.11, 3.53], t(253) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.24], t(253) = -0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.69 (95% CI [17.79, 19.59], t(253) = 40.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.14], t(253) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.14, 1.99], t(253) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.27], t(253) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.39 (95% CI [13.86, 14.92], t(253) = 53.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.76], t(253) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 4.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.77], t(253) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.46], t(253) = 1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.19, 12.49], t(253) = 35.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.57], t(253) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.63], t(253) = -0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.66], t(253) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.15 (95% CI [9.38, 10.91], t(253) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.23], t(253) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.72], t(253) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -4.89e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.30, -0.14], t(253) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.98 (95% CI [9.20, 10.76], t(253) = 25.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.94], t(253) = -0.29, p = 0.775; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.48], t(253) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.70], t(253) = -0.71, p = 0.475; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.34 (95% CI [7.58, 9.11], t(253) = 21.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.25], t(253) = 0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.68], t(253) = -0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.93, 0.38], t(253) = -1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.47 (95% CI [26.31, 30.63], t(253) = 25.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.90, 3.20], t(253) = 0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.46], t(253) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.21, 95% CI [-5.01, 0.59], t(253) = -1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 816.718 | 827.388 | -405.359 | 810.718 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 816.009 | 837.350 | -402.005 | 804.009 | 6.709 | 3 | 0.082 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,257.127 | 1,267.797 | -625.563 | 1,251.127 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,260.254 | 1,281.595 | -624.127 | 1,248.254 | 2.873 | 3 | 0.412 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,549.446 | 1,560.116 | -771.723 | 1,543.446 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,540.451 | 1,561.792 | -764.225 | 1,528.451 | 14.995 | 3 | 0.002 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,054.713 | 1,065.383 | -524.356 | 1,048.713 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,057.649 | 1,078.990 | -522.825 | 1,045.649 | 3.064 | 3 | 0.382 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,293.864 | 1,304.535 | -643.932 | 1,287.864 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,293.947 | 1,315.288 | -640.973 | 1,281.947 | 5.918 | 3 | 0.116 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,242.695 | 1,253.365 | -618.347 | 1,236.695 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,241.097 | 1,262.438 | -614.549 | 1,229.097 | 7.598 | 3 | 0.055 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,174.254 | 1,184.924 | -584.127 | 1,168.254 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,172.125 | 1,193.466 | -580.062 | 1,160.125 | 8.129 | 3 | 0.043 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,800.251 | 1,810.921 | -897.125 | 1,794.251 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,798.562 | 1,819.903 | -893.281 | 1,786.562 | 7.689 | 3 | 0.053 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,480.977 | 1,491.648 | -737.489 | 1,474.977 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,486.417 | 1,507.758 | -737.208 | 1,474.417 | 0.560 | 3 | 0.905 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,599.125 | 1,609.795 | -796.562 | 1,593.125 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,603.824 | 1,625.165 | -795.912 | 1,591.824 | 1.301 | 3 | 0.729 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,687.358 | 1,698.029 | -840.679 | 1,681.358 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,684.052 | 1,705.393 | -836.026 | 1,672.052 | 9.306 | 3 | 0.025 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,348.637 | 1,359.307 | -671.319 | 1,342.637 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,351.303 | 1,372.644 | -669.652 | 1,339.303 | 3.334 | 3 | 0.343 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,593.596 | 1,604.266 | -793.798 | 1,587.596 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,595.560 | 1,616.901 | -791.780 | 1,583.560 | 4.035 | 3 | 0.258 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,663.025 | 1,673.696 | -828.513 | 1,657.025 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,665.113 | 1,686.454 | -826.557 | 1,653.113 | 3.912 | 3 | 0.271 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,488.741 | 1,499.412 | -741.371 | 1,482.741 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,481.036 | 1,502.377 | -734.518 | 1,469.036 | 13.705 | 3 | 0.003 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,238.123 | 1,248.793 | -616.061 | 1,232.123 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,236.372 | 1,257.713 | -612.186 | 1,224.372 | 7.751 | 3 | 0.051 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,283.904 | 1,294.575 | -638.952 | 1,277.904 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,285.066 | 1,306.407 | -636.533 | 1,273.066 | 4.838 | 3 | 0.184 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,288.131 | 1,298.801 | -641.065 | 1,282.131 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,286.004 | 1,307.345 | -637.002 | 1,274.004 | 8.127 | 3 | 0.043 |
els | null | 3 | 1,588.527 | 1,599.198 | -791.264 | 1,582.527 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,586.764 | 1,608.105 | -787.382 | 1,574.764 | 7.763 | 3 | 0.051 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,825.038 | 1,835.709 | -909.519 | 1,819.038 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,820.961 | 1,842.302 | -904.481 | 1,808.961 | 10.077 | 3 | 0.018 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,506.505 | 1,517.175 | -750.253 | 1,500.505 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,506.274 | 1,527.615 | -747.137 | 1,494.274 | 6.231 | 3 | 0.101 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,398.666 | 1,409.337 | -696.333 | 1,392.666 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,399.364 | 1,420.705 | -693.682 | 1,387.364 | 5.302 | 3 | 0.151 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,786.378 | 1,797.049 | -890.189 | 1,780.378 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,786.285 | 1,807.626 | -887.143 | 1,774.285 | 6.093 | 3 | 0.107 |
esteem | null | 3 | 945.773 | 956.444 | -469.887 | 939.773 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 950.869 | 972.210 | -469.434 | 938.869 | 0.905 | 3 | 0.824 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,358.023 | 1,368.694 | -676.012 | 1,352.023 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,359.297 | 1,380.638 | -673.648 | 1,347.297 | 4.726 | 3 | 0.193 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,454.322 | 1,464.993 | -724.161 | 1,448.322 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,455.737 | 1,477.078 | -721.869 | 1,443.737 | 4.585 | 3 | 0.205 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,711.419 | 1,722.089 | -852.709 | 1,705.419 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,712.304 | 1,733.645 | -850.152 | 1,700.304 | 5.115 | 3 | 0.164 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,438.716 | 1,449.387 | -716.358 | 1,432.716 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,438.836 | 1,460.177 | -713.418 | 1,426.836 | 5.880 | 3 | 0.118 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,184.785 | 1,195.456 | -589.393 | 1,178.785 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,187.246 | 1,208.587 | -587.623 | 1,175.246 | 3.539 | 3 | 0.316 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,304.771 | 1,315.441 | -649.385 | 1,298.771 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,306.047 | 1,327.388 | -647.024 | 1,294.047 | 4.724 | 3 | 0.193 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,348.306 | 1,358.976 | -671.153 | 1,342.306 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,344.723 | 1,366.064 | -666.362 | 1,332.723 | 9.583 | 3 | 0.022 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,353.942 | 1,364.613 | -673.971 | 1,347.942 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,356.334 | 1,377.675 | -672.167 | 1,344.334 | 3.608 | 3 | 0.307 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,355.465 | 1,366.135 | -674.733 | 1,349.465 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,357.003 | 1,378.344 | -672.502 | 1,345.003 | 4.462 | 3 | 0.216 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,869.501 | 1,880.172 | -931.751 | 1,863.501 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,868.577 | 1,889.918 | -928.288 | 1,856.577 | 6.924 | 3 | 0.074 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 87 | 3.14 ± 1.18 | 87 | 3.07 ± 1.18 | 0.701 | 0.074 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 45 | 3.32 ± 1.14 | -0.197 | 40 | 3.53 ± 1.14 | -0.491 | 0.410 | -0.220 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 87 | 17.91 ± 2.87 | 87 | 17.72 ± 2.87 | 0.673 | 0.095 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 45 | 17.70 ± 2.67 | 0.106 | 40 | 18.37 ± 2.65 | -0.334 | 0.245 | -0.346 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 87 | 29.33 ± 5.26 | 87 | 30.14 ± 5.26 | 0.314 | -0.289 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 45 | 30.27 ± 4.56 | -0.337 | 40 | 32.11 ± 4.47 | -0.707 | 0.062 | -0.660 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 87 | 11.74 ± 2.00 | 87 | 11.85 ± 2.00 | 0.705 | -0.096 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 45 | 11.67 ± 1.80 | 0.056 | 40 | 12.24 ± 1.77 | -0.324 | 0.142 | -0.475 |
ras_goal | 1st | 87 | 17.17 ± 3.16 | 87 | 17.67 ± 3.16 | 0.303 | -0.260 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 45 | 17.34 ± 2.84 | -0.090 | 40 | 18.44 ± 2.79 | -0.409 | 0.074 | -0.579 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 87 | 13.08 ± 2.89 | 87 | 13.54 ± 2.89 | 0.295 | -0.279 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 45 | 13.40 ± 2.56 | -0.194 | 40 | 14.32 ± 2.52 | -0.472 | 0.097 | -0.556 |
ras_domination | 1st | 87 | 9.94 ± 2.38 | 87 | 9.59 ± 2.38 | 0.325 | 0.204 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 45 | 10.03 ± 2.26 | -0.049 | 40 | 10.61 ± 2.25 | -0.587 | 0.238 | -0.333 |
symptom | 1st | 87 | 30.28 ± 9.12 | 87 | 29.80 ± 9.12 | 0.734 | 0.118 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 45 | 28.67 ± 7.56 | 0.401 | 40 | 28.07 ± 7.35 | 0.434 | 0.709 | 0.151 |
slof_work | 1st | 87 | 22.52 ± 4.74 | 87 | 22.11 ± 4.74 | 0.576 | 0.161 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 45 | 22.52 ± 4.11 | -0.002 | 40 | 22.42 ± 4.03 | -0.124 | 0.911 | 0.039 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 87 | 24.97 ± 5.82 | 87 | 25.64 ± 5.82 | 0.443 | -0.204 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 45 | 24.84 ± 5.15 | 0.039 | 40 | 26.04 ± 5.07 | -0.120 | 0.278 | -0.363 |
satisfaction | 1st | 87 | 19.48 ± 7.09 | 87 | 21.18 ± 7.09 | 0.115 | -0.490 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 45 | 20.32 ± 6.03 | -0.240 | 40 | 22.81 ± 5.89 | -0.470 | 0.055 | -0.720 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 87 | 10.47 ± 3.75 | 87 | 11.01 ± 3.75 | 0.344 | -0.301 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 45 | 11.04 ± 3.17 | -0.316 | 40 | 11.22 ± 3.10 | -0.119 | 0.784 | -0.104 |
mhc_social | 1st | 87 | 14.80 ± 5.78 | 87 | 15.16 ± 5.78 | 0.685 | -0.112 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 45 | 15.87 ± 5.07 | -0.334 | 40 | 15.92 ± 4.98 | -0.239 | 0.962 | -0.016 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 87 | 21.34 ± 6.63 | 87 | 21.89 ± 6.63 | 0.592 | -0.150 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 45 | 22.52 ± 5.80 | -0.324 | 40 | 22.72 ± 5.69 | -0.231 | 0.871 | -0.056 |
resilisnce | 1st | 87 | 15.72 ± 4.53 | 87 | 16.91 ± 4.53 | 0.086 | -0.434 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 45 | 16.40 ± 4.07 | -0.246 | 40 | 18.52 ± 4.01 | -0.590 | 0.016 | -0.778 |
social_provision | 1st | 87 | 13.14 ± 2.85 | 87 | 13.90 ± 2.85 | 0.081 | -0.458 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 45 | 12.77 ± 2.54 | 0.225 | 40 | 14.27 ± 2.50 | -0.228 | 0.006 | -0.911 |
els_value_living | 1st | 87 | 16.64 ± 3.19 | 87 | 17.21 ± 3.19 | 0.245 | -0.325 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 45 | 16.96 ± 2.78 | -0.181 | 40 | 17.77 ± 2.73 | -0.323 | 0.178 | -0.467 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 87 | 12.20 ± 3.27 | 87 | 13.16 ± 3.27 | 0.053 | -0.592 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 45 | 12.59 ± 2.79 | -0.239 | 40 | 13.71 ± 2.73 | -0.339 | 0.061 | -0.691 |
els | 1st | 87 | 28.84 ± 5.94 | 87 | 30.37 ± 5.94 | 0.091 | -0.547 | ||
els | 2nd | 45 | 29.56 ± 5.00 | -0.257 | 40 | 31.40 ± 4.88 | -0.370 | 0.087 | -0.660 |
social_connect | 1st | 87 | 27.16 ± 9.31 | 87 | 26.10 ± 9.31 | 0.455 | 0.239 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 45 | 27.22 ± 7.86 | -0.012 | 40 | 23.31 ± 7.67 | 0.632 | 0.021 | 0.883 |
shs_agency | 1st | 87 | 13.72 ± 5.05 | 87 | 14.80 ± 5.05 | 0.160 | -0.443 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 45 | 14.15 ± 4.28 | -0.175 | 40 | 15.71 ± 4.18 | -0.370 | 0.091 | -0.638 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 87 | 15.37 ± 4.06 | 87 | 16.48 ± 4.06 | 0.072 | -0.547 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 45 | 15.92 ± 3.47 | -0.269 | 40 | 16.79 ± 3.40 | -0.153 | 0.240 | -0.431 |
shs | 1st | 87 | 29.09 ± 8.70 | 87 | 31.29 ± 8.70 | 0.098 | -0.529 | ||
shs | 2nd | 45 | 30.06 ± 7.35 | -0.233 | 40 | 32.48 ± 7.17 | -0.287 | 0.126 | -0.584 |
esteem | 1st | 87 | 12.62 ± 1.55 | 87 | 12.62 ± 1.55 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 45 | 12.46 ± 1.48 | 0.142 | 40 | 12.74 ± 1.47 | -0.101 | 0.379 | -0.242 |
mlq_search | 1st | 87 | 14.52 ± 3.50 | 87 | 15.23 ± 3.50 | 0.181 | -0.310 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 45 | 15.43 ± 3.23 | -0.397 | 40 | 15.12 ± 3.19 | 0.048 | 0.655 | 0.136 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 87 | 13.18 ± 4.33 | 87 | 13.47 ± 4.33 | 0.662 | -0.112 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 45 | 14.08 ± 3.87 | -0.349 | 40 | 14.14 ± 3.82 | -0.260 | 0.944 | -0.023 |
mlq | 1st | 87 | 27.70 ± 7.03 | 87 | 28.70 ± 7.03 | 0.349 | -0.230 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 45 | 29.52 ± 6.36 | -0.419 | 40 | 29.28 ± 6.28 | -0.133 | 0.862 | 0.055 |
empower | 1st | 87 | 18.69 ± 4.29 | 87 | 19.55 ± 4.29 | 0.187 | -0.371 | ||
empower | 2nd | 45 | 19.75 ± 3.75 | -0.458 | 40 | 19.54 ± 3.67 | 0.004 | 0.793 | 0.091 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 87 | 14.39 ± 2.51 | 87 | 14.40 ± 2.51 | 0.976 | -0.007 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 45 | 14.51 ± 2.32 | -0.071 | 40 | 15.03 ± 2.29 | -0.378 | 0.297 | -0.314 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 87 | 11.84 ± 3.10 | 87 | 11.48 ± 3.10 | 0.449 | 0.161 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 45 | 11.61 ± 2.93 | 0.102 | 40 | 10.67 ± 2.91 | 0.367 | 0.137 | 0.426 |
sss_affective | 1st | 87 | 10.15 ± 3.64 | 87 | 10.30 ± 3.64 | 0.787 | -0.080 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 45 | 10.13 ± 3.13 | 0.010 | 40 | 9.06 ± 3.06 | 0.667 | 0.112 | 0.577 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 87 | 9.98 ± 3.72 | 87 | 9.82 ± 3.72 | 0.776 | 0.085 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 45 | 9.69 ± 3.20 | 0.150 | 40 | 9.13 ± 3.13 | 0.362 | 0.412 | 0.297 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 87 | 8.34 ± 3.65 | 87 | 8.51 ± 3.65 | 0.772 | -0.080 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 45 | 8.23 ± 3.20 | 0.058 | 40 | 7.61 ± 3.14 | 0.447 | 0.372 | 0.308 |
sss | 1st | 87 | 28.47 ± 10.26 | 87 | 28.62 ± 10.26 | 0.924 | -0.031 | ||
sss | 2nd | 45 | 28.00 ± 8.62 | 0.098 | 40 | 25.95 ± 8.41 | 0.559 | 0.267 | 0.430 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(234.10) = -0.39, p = 0.701, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)
2st
t(250.33) = 0.83, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.69)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(217.31) = -0.42, p = 0.673, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.67)
2st
t(250.79) = 1.16, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.81)
ras_confidence
1st
t(198.36) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.38)
2st
t(254.91) = 1.87, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.77)
ras_willingness
1st
t(206.62) = 0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.71)
2st
t(253.15) = 1.47, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.33)
ras_goal
1st
t(206.98) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.44)
2st
t(253.06) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.30)
ras_reliance
1st
t(203.17) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.32)
2st
t(254.03) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.00)
ras_domination
1st
t(225.47) = -0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.36)
2st
t(250.02) = 1.18, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.55)
symptom
1st
t(189.52) = -0.34, p = 0.734, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.20 to 2.26)
2st
t(252.35) = -0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.79 to 2.58)
slof_work
1st
t(198.25) = -0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.82 to 1.01)
2st
t(254.92) = -0.11, p = 0.911, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.84 to 1.64)
slof_relationship
1st
t(203.07) = 0.77, p = 0.443, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.42)
2st
t(254.05) = 1.09, p = 0.278, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.39)
satisfaction
1st
t(194.21) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.82)
2st
t(254.77) = 1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.05 to 5.05)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(193.06) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.66)
2st
t(254.46) = 0.27, p = 0.784, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.53)
mhc_social
1st
t(200.91) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.08)
2st
t(254.52) = 0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.10 to 2.20)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(200.04) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.52)
2st
t(254.68) = 0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.66)
resilisnce
1st
t(207.14) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.54)
2st
t(253.02) = 2.42, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.39 to 3.85)
social_provision
1st
t(204.41) = 1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.61)
2st
t(253.72) = 2.76, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.43 to 2.59)
els_value_living
1st
t(199.93) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.52)
2st
t(254.70) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.99)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(195.16) = 1.95, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.94)
2st
t(254.92) = 1.88, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.31)
els
1st
t(192.28) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.31)
2st
t(254.16) = 1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.27 to 3.96)
social_connect
1st
t(192.76) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.84 to 1.73)
2st
t(254.36) = -2.32, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-7.23 to -0.59)
shs_agency
1st
t(193.54) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.59)
2st
t(254.61) = 1.69, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.36)
shs_pathway
1st
t(195.46) = 1.81, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.33)
2st
t(254.95) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.35)
shs
1st
t(193.01) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.41 to 4.80)
2st
t(254.45) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.68 to 5.53)
esteem
1st
t(228.95) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.46)
2st
t(250.01) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.91)
mlq_search
1st
t(214.45) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.76)
2st
t(251.30) = -0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.06)
mlq_presence
1st
t(205.98) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.58)
2st
t(253.32) = 0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.70)
mlq
1st
t(208.96) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.10 to 3.10)
2st
t(252.55) = -0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.94 to 2.47)
empower
1st
t(199.62) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.15)
2st
t(254.75) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.37)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(215.52) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.76)
2st
t(251.09) = 1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.51)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(222.92) = -0.76, p = 0.449, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)
2st
t(250.15) = -1.49, p = 0.137, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.30)
sss_affective
1st
t(196.28) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.24)
2st
t(255.00) = -1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.25)
sss_behavior
1st
t(196.51) = -0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.95)
2st
t(255.00) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.79)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(200.36) = 0.29, p = 0.772, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)
2st
t(254.63) = -0.89, p = 0.372, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.74)
sss
1st
t(191.95) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.92 to 3.22)
2st
t(254.01) = -1.11, p = 0.267, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.70 to 1.58)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(123.28) = 2.40, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.83)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(110.16) = 1.59, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.46)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(97.94) = 3.28, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.78 to 3.16)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(103.04) = 1.52, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.90)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(103.27) = 1.92, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.58)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(100.88) = 2.20, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.48)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(116.14) = 2.83, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.74)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(92.74) = -1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.47 to -0.00)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(97.87) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.38)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(100.81) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.81)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(95.46) = 2.17, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.12)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(94.79) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.99)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(99.48) = 1.11, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.12)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(98.95) = 1.07, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.38)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(103.38) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.46 to 2.76)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(101.65) = 1.07, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.08)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(98.89) = 1.50, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.30)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(96.02) = 1.57, p = 0.241, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.25)
els
1st vs 2st
t(94.34) = 1.70, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.24)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(94.61) = -2.91, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.70 to -0.89)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(95.07) = 1.71, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.95)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(96.20) = 0.71, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.19)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(94.76) = 1.32, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.98)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(118.89) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.59)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(108.18) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.85)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(102.63) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.75)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(104.54) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.41)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(98.70) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.98)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(108.91) = 1.80, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.33)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(114.21) = -1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.10)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(96.69) = -3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.03 to -0.44)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(96.82) = -1.68, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.13)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(99.14) = -2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.04)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(94.14) = -2.57, p = 0.023, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.74 to -0.61)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(118.22) = 1.01, p = 0.629, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.54)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(106.86) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.56)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(96.21) = 1.65, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.19 to 2.06)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(100.67) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.41)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(100.87) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.93)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(98.78) = 0.96, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.98)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(112.04) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.77)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(91.64) = -1.94, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.25 to 0.04)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(96.15) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.02)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(98.72) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.21)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(94.04) = 1.17, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.25)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(93.45) = 1.54, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.30)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(97.56) = 1.64, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.35)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(97.10) = 1.59, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.63)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(100.96) = 1.22, p = 0.451, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.77)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(99.46) = -1.11, p = 0.539, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.29)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(97.04) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.01)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(94.53) = 1.17, p = 0.492, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.05)
els
1st vs 2st
t(93.05) = 1.25, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.86)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(93.29) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.86)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(93.70) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.42)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(94.69) = 1.31, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.38)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(93.42) = 1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.66)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(114.42) = -0.72, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.29)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(105.15) = 1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.83)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(100.32) = 1.72, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.93)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(101.98) = 2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.08 to 3.55)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(96.87) = 2.25, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.00)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(105.78) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.78)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(110.37) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.64)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(95.12) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.74)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(95.23) = -0.73, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.49)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(97.27) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.69)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(92.88) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.42 to 1.49)